|
In his Presidential Address to the Academy in 1993, Donald Hambrick identified a number of pressing issues that are as salient for the Academy today as they were then. Key among those issues was the suggestion that if the Academy wants to matter, wants to make a contribution to the management of organisations around the world, then it had better internationalise itself. As he wrote at the time (Hambrick, 1994, p.15) “If we wish to claim an international mindedness, and if we wish to exhort our students to an international mindedness, then we must show it and reinforce it in our own actions”. In 2005, the Academy is once again calling for internationalisation. I assume from this that Donald’s suggestions of a dozen years ago went unheeded and the Academy today has not become any more international than it was at that time.
What does internationalisation mean? The received wisdom seems to be that anything outside the US is international - a rather narrow perspective in my view. I would suggest that if we are to internationalise the Academy (and do we really want to anyway?), then as Hambrick indicates, this international spirit must be visible in our actions, collectively and individually. Three of the most obvious component parts of the Academy are: its members, its publications and its meetings. The membership is international, to a degree, though it could be more so. We could all promote the Academy among our national and international contacts and try to persuade these people to submit to the annual meetings, to volunteer as reviewers, to support the division. As a way to persuade new members to attend, we could offer incentives such as best paper awards for authors from outside the US or travel support for a select number of doctoral students.
Superficially, the Academy’s publications appear to be international, in the sense that their editorial teams include people from different countries and they publish articles written by authors located in different countries (though there is a clear US dominance), writing about issues on an international scale. However, a closer examination reveals that American imperialism reigns, with most of the non-US authors and editors having been professionally socialised (though PhD programmes and work) in the US.
As to the meetings, well, Hambrick also raised this issue, suggesting that there is a need for the annual meeting to be held outside the US or Canada. He did not believe that such an arrangement would result in reduced attendance, but rather suggested that an “off-shore meeting” would be “exhilarating, energizing and highly visible” (ibid.). I myself have raised this suggestion with the Academy secretariat previously, but was informed that no city outside the US or Canada has the facilities to manage a conference with 6000+ delegates and associated accommodation. Well, with respect, I believe that this is simply not true. Major cities in the Asia Pacific such as Tokyo, Osaka, Hong Kong, Singapore, Beijing and Shanghai, to name a few, should not have difficulty hosting such an event. In 2006, the ITU’s Telecom World conference, with an expected 100,000+ delegates, will be held in Hong Kong.
The objective of being an International Academy is certainly a laudable one. It is even an achievable one, though some changes will be necessary - to the way the Academy and its members see themselves. To play Devil’s Advocate, does the Academy really want to internationalise? Is it willing to pay the price and accept the challenges? Or is it only after token internationalis-ation? International in name, but not deed? International in membership and source of revenues, but little more? The question is an open one to the Academy. Do you want to be truly international or not?
Reference
Hambrick, D.C. (1994) "What if the Academy Actually Mattered?," Academy of Management Review, 19, 1, 11-16.
|
